|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:58 am
Jubillie A hypothesis can be an educated guess, but doesn't have to be. Like Emily said, whether or not a guess is educated is subject to oppinion.
One of the online dictionary meaning is a mear guess.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. (I never did say her hypothesis was useful.)
Anyhow I don't even know why we are arguing about hypothesis, I simply said, and if I didn't say it right well I meant to say that her "inflamitory" statement could of just been her own personal hypothesis. Which you then judged by your opinion to be inflamitory and named it "atheistic". Which I felt was name calling and felt like I should call you on it.
'tis all.
whee heart
I was not attacking the person, but the argument. Saying that abolishing religion would eliminate war and death is a common, unfounded piece of propaganda mostly promulgated by atheists with an anti-religious agenda. This is what I meant by "atheistic propaganda". You should be very careful not to accuse people ad hominem attacks where there are none. I did not call her any names or attack her character. I have no problem with atheists except where they confuse political agendas for scientific ones.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:55 pm
Akhiris Jubillie A hypothesis can be an educated guess, but doesn't have to be. Like Emily said, whether or not a guess is educated is subject to oppinion.
One of the online dictionary meaning is a mear guess.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. (I never did say her hypothesis was useful.)
Anyhow I don't even know why we are arguing about hypothesis, I simply said, and if I didn't say it right well I meant to say that her "inflamitory" statement could of just been her own personal hypothesis. Which you then judged by your opinion to be inflamitory and named it "atheistic". Which I felt was name calling and felt like I should call you on it.
'tis all.
whee heart
I was not attacking the person, but the argument. Saying that abolishing religion would eliminate war and death is a common, unfounded piece of propaganda mostly promulgated by atheists with an anti-religious agenda. This is what I meant by "atheistic propaganda". You should be very careful not to accuse people ad hominem attacks where there are none. I did not call her any names or attack her character. I have no problem with atheists except where they confuse political agendas for scientific ones.
I can see where what you have said to Mizz Timbazu has come accross as name calling. Even if your not name calling the person your still name calling the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:33 pm
Emily`s_Gone_Mad Atheist aren't the only one's to confuse political agenda's with scientific one's.
I can see where what you have said to Mizz Timbazu has come accross as name calling. Even if your not name calling the person your still name calling the argument. That would be the point of a debate, is it not? To debate? It wasn't name calling, it was pointing out the argument was statistically unfounded. Nobody has the right not to be offended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:41 pm
Akhiris Emily`s_Gone_Mad Atheist aren't the only one's to confuse political agenda's with scientific one's.
I can see where what you have said to Mizz Timbazu has come accross as name calling. Even if your not name calling the person your still name calling the argument. That would be the point of a debate, is it not? To debate? It wasn't name calling, it was pointing out the argument was statistically unfounded. Nobody has the right not to be offended.
I don't think anyone was offended, although I'm getting this impression that you are by trying hard to defend your "atheistic" comment.
Calling propaganda "atheistsic" is name calling m'dear. Propaganda does not soley belong to Atheist or any religious groups. You can point out the argument was statistically unfounded without calling it "atheistic".
Sure it was inflamiatory propaganda and that's fine if you want to call it "atheistic", but know that such statment falls under the catagory of "name calling" and sterotypes and if someone calls you on it, you don't have to go out of your way to try to prove you weren't.
If you don't feel you were name calling that's fine, but someone felt you were, I don't think that she was accusing you of anything, simply stating what she FELT when she read your statement. At least that's how I understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:02 am
Emily`s_Gone_Mad
I don't think anyone was offended, although I'm getting this impression that you are by trying hard to defend your "atheistic" comment.
Calling propaganda "atheistsic" is name calling m'dear. Propaganda does not soley belong to Atheist or any religious groups. You can point out the argument was statistically unfounded without calling it "atheistic".
Sure it was inflamiatory propaganda and that's fine if you want to call it "atheistic", but know that such statment falls under the catagory of "name calling" and sterotypes and if someone calls you on it, you don't have to go out of your way to try to prove you weren't.
If you don't feel you were name calling that's fine, but someone felt you were, I don't think that she was accusing you of anything, simply stating what she FELT when she read your statement. At least that's how I understand it. I don’t understand why you are harping on the adjective ‘atheistic’ as being offensive when it is merely descriptive. I understand that propaganda is not limited to any one population or group and had the argument been a denial of evolution that had no statistical basis to back it up it would be equally valid to characterize that argument as ‘creationist propaganda.’ The only loaded word here is ‘propaganda’ which I am using to characterize any statement that blindly mimics the party line without solid evidence to back it up. Do you see where I am going with this? If you place on people the inability to call an argument anything for fear of offending them then you will be able to say nothing at all. Everyone will be offended by something or other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:45 pm
Akhiris Emily`s_Gone_Mad
I don't think anyone was offended, although I'm getting this impression that you are by trying hard to defend your "atheistic" comment.
Calling propaganda "atheistsic" is name calling m'dear. Propaganda does not soley belong to Atheist or any religious groups. You can point out the argument was statistically unfounded without calling it "atheistic".
Sure it was inflamiatory propaganda and that's fine if you want to call it "atheistic", but know that such statment falls under the catagory of "name calling" and sterotypes and if someone calls you on it, you don't have to go out of your way to try to prove you weren't.
If you don't feel you were name calling that's fine, but someone felt you were, I don't think that she was accusing you of anything, simply stating what she FELT when she read your statement. At least that's how I understand it. I don’t understand why you are harping on the adjective ‘atheistic’ as being offensive when it is merely descriptive. I understand that propaganda is not limited to any one population or group and had the argument been a denial of evolution that had no statistical basis to back it up it would be equally valid to characterize that argument as ‘ creationist propaganda.’ The only loaded word here is ‘propaganda’ which I am using to characterize any statement that blindly mimics the party line without solid evidence to back it up. Do you see where I am going with this? If you place on people the inability to call an argument anything for fear of offending them then you will be able to say nothing at all. Everyone will be offended by something or other.
stare
And I didn't say it was offensive. Like I SAID EARLIER, you can call it whatever you want, but don't make a big deal of it if someone say's you were name calling.
Creationist is a discriptive word, athesic is a "religious" way of life.
If the argument would of been denial of evolution calling it
"Christian propaganda" is a more of a comparison to your statement of "Athesic propaganda".
Do YOU follow?
You need to re-read what I wrote.
There is really no reason to keep going with this.
Someone said you were name calling, you feel like you weren't ...OK.
THE END.
xd biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:50 pm
ninja Is this thread safe?? or did it implode??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:24 pm
Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Jubillie Dahlia Thief Lord Miss TiramiZu Science is just correct and exact, until someone proove the opposite or improve the science. Prove science is always correct.
You can't prove science is always correct, because it's not.
Nothing in science is 100%
Once again, that post was directed to Miss TiramiZu, not you. That post was directed to anyone in the thread. This isn't a private discussion between you and Miss TiramiZu - as Emily has stated - this is a forum. But then again, I was asking Miss TiramiZu if she had proof God doesn't exist. Quote: And anything you say can be subject to critiscim from anyone. But sometimes, it depends on who you're asking the question directly to. Miss TiramiZu said there is no God, and I ASKED her to prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:39 pm
Dahlia Thief Lord Gimme proof that God doesn't exist! Well, first of all, you can't see God. And I don't know, being able to see something kinda gives it more credibility neutral . And if there really is a god, he's either incompetient or he doesn't give a s**t. Seriously, i tried believing in God, but the longer you live, the more you look around, the quicker you realize, something is ******** up. When you look at the state of the world, this does not look like the work of a supreme being. This looks like the work of a bored obnoxious p***k with a bad attitude. Also, i say 'he' because if there is a god, it has to be a guy, because no woman could or would ever screw things up so badly. Also, he's an invisible man that made 10 stupid rules,that if you break them, you're sent to a place full of anguish and torture where you will stay for the rest of your life......but he loves you xp it just doesn't make sense... rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:58 pm
I usually stay out of discussions like this because my mom told me that there were two things that you do not discuss in public, religion and politics. But since I already ignore her on politics I may as well start on religion too. Personally I do not think that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that I believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, but I also don't think that this world was the result of an accident. There are too many complex systems on this earth to it have not been engineered by someone. Every great thing has an inventor or creator or whatever you would like to call it.
For a non believer you can never prove God. For those who do believe the only proof needed is faith. It is a slippery slope that can lead to all kinds of problems in the world, but what we need to realize is that everybody has their own opinion and we should respect each others differences. Nothing is accomplished by seeing who can out debate one another on a discussion forum because each person has their own set of dug in beliefs and nothing that either party says is going to change the others mind. The best thing is to have a live and let live attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:12 am
kitten22481 I usually stay out of discussions like this because my mom told me that there were two things that you do not discuss in public, religion and politics. But since I already ignore her on politics I may as well start on religion too. Personally I do not think that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that I believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, but I also don't think that this world was the result of an accident. There are too many complex systems on this earth to it have not been engineered by someone. Every great thing has an inventor or creator or whatever you would like to call it. For a non believer you can never prove God. For those who do believe the only proof needed is faith. It is a slippery slope that can lead to all kinds of problems in the world, but what we need to realize is that everybody has their own opinion and we should respect each others differences. Nothing is accomplished by seeing who can out debate one another on a discussion forum because each person has their own set of dug in beliefs and nothing that either party says is going to change the others mind. The best thing is to have a live and let live attitude. My sentiments exactly. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:12 am
sbpoofer ninja Is this thread safe?? or did it implode?? I do adore controversy. I would like to think this thread's discussions have died down. There have been a lot of issues sparked too. Although if anyone wishes to add, they're more than welcome. This is a marvelous well of insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:16 am
Fatal Crescent sbpoofer ninja Is this thread safe?? or did it implode?? I do adore controversy. I would like to think this thread's discussions have died down. There have been a lot of issues sparked too. Although if anyone wishes to add, they're more than welcome. This is a marvelous well of insight. I don't reallly enjoy talking about science vs. religion. Debating about it causes people to get mad because someone else doesn't believe in the same thing that they believe in. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:24 am
poetic emo goddess Dahlia Thief Lord Gimme proof that God doesn't exist! Well, first of all, you can't see God. God's a spirit, remember? Quote: And I don't know, being able to see something kinda gives it more credibility neutral . Spirits aren't suppose to be seen. Quote: And if there really is a god, he's either incompetient or he doesn't give a s**t. He gave a s**t long time ago, and now it's our turn to stand up for ourselves. Quote: Seriously, i tried believing in God, but the longer you live, the more you look around, the quicker you realize, something is ******** up. I already realize something was ******** up long time ago. Quote: When you look at the state of the world, this does not look like the work of a supreme being. What are you talking about? Quote: This looks like the work of a bored obnoxious p***k with a bad attitude. It depends on how you look at the world. Quote: Also, i say 'he' because if there is a god, it has to be a guy, because no woman could or would ever screw things up so badly. Are you stereotyping males as "screw-ups?" Quote: Also, he's an invisible man that made 10 stupid rules,that if you break them, you're sent to a place full of anguish and torture where you will stay for the rest of your life...... There's always forgiveness. Quote: but he loves you xp it just doesn't make sense... rolleyes I believe he loves me because I have a good life (I think).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:36 pm
poetic emo goddess Fatal Crescent sbpoofer ninja Is this thread safe?? or did it implode?? I do adore controversy. I would like to think this thread's discussions have died down. There have been a lot of issues sparked too. Although if anyone wishes to add, they're more than welcome. This is a marvelous well of insight. I don't reallly enjoy talking about science vs. religion. Debating about it causes people to get mad because someone else doesn't believe in the same thing that they believe in. sweatdrop Well we don't have to offend eachother, we can just share our oppinions which WILL be different, and one has to not be offended by that. Being open minded enough to at least listen to what the other person hasto say has a lot do to with weather or not we get upset...and making sure that we don't respond in such an inflamitory way.
Back to the science vs religion, I don't think the two have to meet eachother head on like that. I think science and religion can go together.
I agree with Kitten, we need to respect eachother's differences. Even if that means respecting someone who doesn't believe in God, or who say's God doesn't exsit. That's fine. This thread wasn't meant to covert non-believers to belivers or any nonsence like that. Asking questions about God's exsistance is mute.
...and for thre record, spirits as far as I'm concered can not be seen - perhaps they can inhibit the form of something that we can see but your still not visualising the spirit itself.
(Anyways that's off subject.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
